1969 Supreme(Ori) 90
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra, C. J. And R. N. Misra, J.
SHIBA PRASAD SAHOO - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
O. J. C. 702 Of 1969
Decided On : AUGUST 27, 1969
D.P.MOHAPATRA, N.C.MOHANTY, S.C.PARIJA
The Transport Authority is bound to dispose of permit applications in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and cannot ignore applications that have been validly made.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 57 - PERMIT APPLICATION - VALIDITY - DISPOSITION - LEGAL PROCESS - MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for stage carriage permits on two routes, which were about to be withdrawn by the State Transport Service. The State Transport Authority decided to fill up the routes by invitation of applications and published advertisements. The petitioner found that his applications had not been notified and requested the Secretary of the State Transport Authority to notify them. The Secretary informed the petitioner that he should have applied afresh after the routes were advertised and that his applications could not be notified.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's applications were valid and came within the first alternative of Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows for applications to be made at any time at least six weeks before the date on which the permit is desired to be effective. The court also held that the applications had not been disposed of in accordance with law and must be taken to be pending to be disposed of by the opposite party.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's applications were valid under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the applications had been validly disposed of?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's applications were valid because they were made at least six weeks before the date on which the permit was desired to be effective, even though they did not specify a specific date. The court found support for this view in a previous decision of the Allahabad High Court. 2. The court held that the applications had not been validly disposed of because the Secretary of the State Transport Authority did not have the authority to decline to receive them. The court found that the power to dispose of applications rests only with the Transport Authority itself.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party to treat the petitioner's applications as pending and to dispose of them in accordance with law.
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THERE are two Inter-State stage carriage routes (1) Sambalpur to Ranchi, and (2) Rourkela to Ranchi, on which the State Transport Service had been operating their buses. The petitioner came to know that the State Transport Service was about to withdraw from the said routes and therefore, made two separate applications to the State Transport Authority, opposite party before us, for grant of stage carriage permits to him on the said two routes. These applications were received in the office of the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on 17-3-69. On 22-3-69, the State Transport Authority decided to fill up the routes by invitation of applications and on 26-4-69, advertisements in terms of Section 57 of the Motor vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) were published inviting applications from intending operators on or before 15-5-69. After the applications were received, they were duly notified on 27-5-69, under Section 57 (3) of the Act fixing 30-6-69 as the last date for receipt of objections. The petitioner found that his applications referred to above had not been notified and therefore, made a request to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority to notify his applications. The petitioner was informed by the Secretary on 15-7-69 to the effect that he had already been informed earlier that he should apply afresh after the routes were advertised and as he had not applied as directed, he could not claim his applications to be notified.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has thereupon come before us in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the action of the opposite party in refusing to notify his applications, and wants us to issue a writ to quash the notifications of the other applications under Section 57 (3) of the Act and for a direction that his applications may be notified and disposed of in accordance with law.
( 3 ) THE opposite party in its counter affidavit has stated that on 17-3-69 the two applications from the petitioner had been received, but by then there was no vacancy on the routes and as such the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, in exercise of powers under Rule 54 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, declined to accept the said applications and the petitioner was duly informed a few days thereafter that he should apply afresh when applications are invited, and his applications received on 17-3-69 were filed in the office of the State Transport authority. The petitioner did not apply in terms of the directions and therefore there were no applications pending consideration before the State Transport authority, which could be asked to be notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act. It is also contended that the applications of the petitioner did not come within the purview of Section 57 (2) of the Act, and as such are not entitled to any consideration.
( 4 ) SECTION 57 of the Act lays down the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of that section, which are material for our present purpose, may be extracted below: " (2) An application for a stage carrige permit or public carrier's permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, or such dates. (3) On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for Inspection at the office of the authority ami shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations, received will be considered. " sub-section (2) clearly contem